Missouri with concealed carry, no permit required
- Thread starter Magdump
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Based on how some LEO on here think the constitutional carry could make Terry Stops illegal, maybe so.
I wouldn't have thought so, which is why I can't understand the vehement opposition to constitutional carry based on that reasoning.
Based on how some LEO on here think the constitutional carry could make Terry Stops illegal, maybe so.
I wouldn't have thought so, which is why I can't understand the vehement opposition to constitutional carry based on that reasoning.
So that's a no for you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That would be my belief.
Which is why I am confused as to the opposition to constitutional carry based on the belief that it would put the legality of Terry Stops in jeopardy.
The point he was making is its a BS argument just like most every other objections to returning our state gun laws to a constitutional footing.
Because is has no basis in fact.
What other arguments?
All the arguments I have heard against constitutional carry and the same arguments the anti-gun crowd uses against guns in general.
Go ahead and make you case, I am open to any rational, reasonable arguments.
But Derps, Bubbas, and Dindus still have the same rights as everyone else.
If they are felons, they lose them just like everyone else.
I'm waiting.
Don't hold your breath. The gun crowd is way worse than the Republican Party when it comes to standing on principle, because so few are willing and those who will get eaten by their own.
I will not speak for others, only myself, so what you're going to read is my opinion only.
I do not want every single person out there to be able to slip a hi-point into their waist band and it be legal. Why? Because I don't want untrained moronic rednecks, who don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip, carrying around a deadly weapon. CHP "Training" is a joke, but if bubba and his friends aren't willing to accept that any form of training is a good idea, then they shouldn't be carrying anyway. I look at the CHP requirements the same as I view a driving test. Passing the driving test doesn't make you a good driver, but there are a lot of folks that fail the driving test. Just as I've seen tons of folks miss a target at 5 yards in a CHP class.
Your argument is going to be that a CHP is a permission slip that infringes on our rights. That's totally fine, be the freedom fighter you want to be, and try to get constitutional carry passed. I'm just saying that when it comes time to vote for it, I'm neither going to agree with it or disagree. You want it, you fight for it. I'm just going to sip my coffee and watch you fight the libtards.
I think that may be the most honest post I have ever seen you post. I applaud you honestly.
In the spirit of honesty, I have to agree if you can't take some basic steps to learn basic gun safety and good shooting techniques you shouldn't carry or use guns. This we agree on, but my deviation starts with who has a right to tell someone they aren't allowed to. And the constitution says no one is allowed to. And many argue against that line of thinking and say no that's not true the 2a provides you a military but they are wrong. The third and fourth phrases are very important:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were lawyers that understood the importance of being specific and being vague. They were specific when the said "right of the people" then vague when they said "bear arms" and again quite specific when they said "shall not be infringed". This shows the intent to restrict the government from interfering in an individual's rights to weaponry of their choice.
I understand completely that there is plenty of good reasons for concern with our society continuing this death spiral of stupidity and people who are mentally incompetent of finding their way out of a wet paper sack much less toting a 45acp full of hollow points, but as whitsend reminds us everyone of us who own guns are looked at in that light by the libs.
Last edited:
Just like any good LEO might stop and check out any law abiding citizen legally open carrying, I imagine they would do the same with a person carrying concealed. Of course there is the issue of how it becomes known or suspected that a person is carrying concealed when it's supposed to be concealed.
Personally, I'd like to have been around when everyone carried a gun (most everyone). People were more polite then. And I'm sure, despite the stories of the Wild West and daily shoot outs at OK corrals and such, the crime rate per capita was very low.
I'd also like to have been around when the Feds told all them cowboys that they could no longer carry their guns around...
JoeLiberty
Well-Known Member
So if it's strictly a training issue, does that mean you are against the new Brandi Trahan Act? This new law allows victims of abuse who have obtained a protective order to get a temporary CHP without going through the training. Makes sense to me. How about you?
I appreciate the response.
I don't want unsafe and ignorant people carrying, but I believe it is their right.
I believe we all should have training before we carry, but I don't think it should be required.
I believe firearms safety should be taught in school, probably Jr High.
I would love to see LE offer free basic firearms training to the public.
I would love to see private charitable foundations offer grants to provide more advanced instruction to those who can't afford it.
The arguments you use against constitutional carry are the same ones the libtards use against any carry.
If they are truly concerned with their right to defend themselves, they would open carry or get a CHP.
I respectfully disagree.
I agree, but that will never happen in this lifetime.
1. That's not Law Enforcement's job.
2. That's not within the budget.
3. Anyone with a serious concern about defending themselves should seek training regardless.
4. Paid courses may or may not be better than the hypothetical budget allowed for LE free training.
Now you're getting silly. If you can afford a dependable firearm, and can afford to shoot it, you can afford training. I would like to attend a Pat McNamara course soon, but it's not within my budget, so feel free to be charitable.
The arguments you use are far-fetched. Stop living in your fantasy world.
I doubt seriously anything catastrophic would take place if we passed it here. It would probably be no better / no worse than it is now.
The truth is, half the population wouldn't even be aware that the law changed, anyway.
The truth is, half the population wouldn't even be aware that the law changed, anyway.
I doubt seriously anything catastrophic would take place if we passed it here. It would probably be no better / no worse than it is now.
The truth is, half the population wouldn't even be aware that the law changed, anyway.
Just half? You are optimistic. We elected a lib-tard for governor because his name sounded familiar. I swear to you many people thought they were getting "the lizard" himself.
I still run across people I know who didn't know any non-felon adult can buy an ar legally.
Ask those same folks who won (insert stupid reality show here) and of course they know who and why and all the back story and fake drama to go with it.
Last edited:
